2012-13 Year-End Report of the Professional Standards Committee
The members of the Professional Standards Committee (PSC) in 2012-13 were: Kristine
Bartanen (ex-officio), Douglas Cannon, Jennifer Hastings, Pat Krueger, Andreas Madlung,
Doug Sackman, Kurt Walls, and Seth Weinberger (chair).
The Senate charges to the PSC were:
1) Review the policy on “Background Checks of Faculty” being drafted by the Human
Resources Department;
2) Review the “Research Misconduct Policy” document and suggest changes to existing
documents as needed to achieve consistency among the various response processes in the
case of research misconduct;
3) Clarify (a) expectation for junior (tenure-line) faculty participation in evaluations of
departmental colleagues, and (b) if a written recommendation is required of junior faculty
in a change of status review (promotion, tenure);
4) Clarify who is responsible for ensuring adequate classroom visits by colleagues—the
head officer or the evaluee; and
5) Clarify whether a letter of evaluation sent directly to the Dean/Faculty Advancement
Committee in an open file may be read by an evaluee.
6) Continue the review of Faculty Code provisions on guidelines for the use of course
assistants.
The charges were addressed as follows:
1) The PSC has not yet received recommendations from Human Resources; thus no
action was taken on this charge. The PSC recommends that the charge be reissued
for 2013-14.
2) The PSC approved a new Research Misconduct Policy on April 8, 2013. The new
policy required a Faculty Code amendment to align the faculty’s grievance policy
with the federally-required Research Misconduct Policy; the code amendment was
approved by the Faculty at the meeting of April 15, 2013. The amendment will be
presented to the Board of Trustees for approval at the May 2013 meeting. The
Research Misconduct Policy can be found here:
http://www.pugetsound.edu/files/resources/3117_Research%20Misconduct%20P
olicy.pdf. The accompanying code amendment can be found at the end of this
document.
3) The PSC finds that the Faculty Code does not distinguish a subset of faculty
colleagues designated as “junior.” The PSC interprets this to mean participation
responsibilities in faculty evaluations are the same for all faculty colleagues.
4) The Faculty Evaluation Criteria and Procedures document on page 11, paragraph 2
states that the “final determination of adequacy rests with the head officer and the
Faculty Advancement Committee.” The PSC affirms that it is the evaluee’s
25
responsibility to ensure that adequate opportunities for evaluators to visit are
available, but not to ensure that the visits actually occur.
5) The PSC modified page 20, paragraph 2 of the Faculty Evaluation Criteria and
Procedures document to read “The head officer notifies departmental colleagues,
and outside letter writers upon receipt of their letter, as to whether the evaluation
file is open or closed. If the letter writer does not wish his/her letter to be read by
an evaluee in an open file, the letter may be altered or withdrawn.”
6) The PSC did not address this issue. The PSC recommends that the charge be reissued
for 2013-14.
Other issues addressed by the PSC:
1) On September 12, 2012, the PSC approved the Department of Mathematics &
Computer Science’s Statement of Evaluation Standards and Procedures.
2) On September 19, the PSC approved, with slight modifications, the School of
Business and Leadership’s Statement of Procedures, Criteria, and Standards for Faculty
Evaluation.
3) On September 26, the PSC approved, with slight modifications, the School of
Occupational Therapy and Physical Therapy’s Interdepartmental Evaluation Criteria.
4) On October 4, the PSC discussed the issue of students with disabilities who might
require additional time to complete Instructor and Course Evaluation Forms. In
consultation with the Director of Disability Services, the PSC decided that the Office
of Disability Services (ODS) would send notices to students with disabilities in
classes in which evaluations are required to notify them of the opportunity to
complete the evaluation at ODS. It was also recommended that ODS set up a
common time or times for disabled students to complete evaluations en masse.
5) On February 12, 2013, the PSC discussed whether, given evidence that few students
require the full time, 20 minutes should still be allotted for course evaluations. The
PSC discussed reducing the allotted time to 15 minutes, but took no action.
6) On February 12, the PSC discussed the possibility of moving the files of evaluees online to save resources and time. The issue was tabled, pending action from the
Library, Media, and Information Services committee regarding on-line processes.
7) On February 18, following input from the university’s legal counsel, the PSC
approved a Faculty Code interpretation concerning the professional ethics of faculty
and relationships of a sexual nature. The interpretation is included below and will
be presented to the Academic and Student Affairs Committee of the Board for
concurrence at the May 2013 meeting.
8) On March 25, the PSC approved an addendum to the Department of English’s
evaluation criteria for the Director of the Center for Writing, Learning, and Teaching
(currently Julie Nelson Christoph).
26
9) On April 8, the PSC approved an addendum to the Department of Politics &
Government’s evaluation criteria for the position of Professor of Environmental
Policy and Decision Making (currently Daniel Sherman).
10)On April 22, the PSC discussed ways to improve the evaluation process, with an eye
to reducing the workloads on the Faculty Advancement Committee, the evaluatee,
department chairs, and the departments. The PSC considered several options,
including adding to the Faculty Evaluation Criteria and Procedures document
recommended page limits for statements and letters and providing a document
detailing the expectations for an evaluator’s letter. The PSC recommends that the
Faculty Advancement Committee be tasked with recommending page limits and
detailing expectations. The PSC also discussed simplifying all streamlined reviews
by eliminating the need for an evaluatee to submit a formal file. Instead, if a review
is to be streamlined, it should resemble the reviews that occur during the 1st and 2nd
years of employment which culminate in a “written progress report by the head
officer that should be forwarded to the individual, the Faculty Advancement
Committee, and the Dean.” Given the end of the semester, the PSC was unable to
take action and recommends that a charge is issued for 2013-14.
Proposed charges for 2013-2014:
1) Review the policy on “Background Checks of Faculty” being drafted by the Human
Resources Department.
2) Continue the review of Faculty Code provisions on guidelines for the use of course
assistants.
3) Formulate recommendations for streamlining the faculty evaluation process in order to
reduce workload on evaluees, departments, head officers, the Faculty Advancement
Committee, and the Dean of the University. Propose amendments to the Faculty Code that
are entailed by these recommendations.
4) The PSC recommends that the Faculty Advancement Committee be tasked with
recommending page limits both for evaluee statements and for letters of evaluation by
colleagues and with detailing expectations for faculty evaluation files.
Respectfully submitted,
Seth Weinberger
Associate Professor
Department of Politics & Government
Chair, Professional Standards Committee, 2012-13
27
Interpretation of Chapter I, Part C, Section 3, Chapter 1, Part D, Section 2 (e), and
Chapter I, Part D, Section 4. Professional Ethics of Faculty and Relationships of a
Consensual Sexual Nature.
It is in the best interest of the university and all individuals associated with the university
that there be no real or perceived bias in situations where one individual exerts influence
over another colleague or staff member. Situations of direct supervision or when one has
the ability to advance, promote, recommend, or in any other way directly influence the
academic or work status of the colleague are the times when transparency is required.
The existence of a consensual sexual relationship constitutes a conflict of interest, and can
create a real or perceived bias. Therefore, it is the policy of the university that such
relationships should be disclosed when there is any possibility of a supervisory or career
influencing role between the parties. When faculty or staff members enter into a
consensual sexual relationship where one party has supervisory or career influence over
the other, each party is required to promptly disclose the relationship to his/her
superior(s) so that reassignment, alternative supervision processes, or other arrangements
can be facilitated and documented.
The following scenarios are presented as examples where a faculty member must disclose
the existence of a consensual sexual relationship. They are not intended to be exclusive,
and faculty members should exercise judgment when faced with a similar situation.
• The evaluation process is clearly a career-influencing relationship. No faculty member
should participate in the evaluation of another faculty member with whom he or she is
involved in a consensual sexual relationship and all faculty members, including head
officers, are expected to recuse themselves from such situations.
• Hiring decisions are also understood to involve the exercise of judgment and may result
in a work- or career-influencing relationship. No faculty member should participate in the
search or hiring process when a person with whom he or she is involved in a consensual
sexual relationship is an applicant and all faculty members, including head officers, are
expected to recuse themselves from such situations.
• The responsibilities of serving as department chair or program director may also, at
times, require supervising or making decisions about the academic or work status of other
departmental members. Departmental chairs should be aware of when their duties place
them in a career-influencing relationship to a colleague with whom they are involved in a
consensual sexual relationship. If and when such situations should arise, chairs should take
care to put alternative processes in place to avoid conflicts of interest or other
improprieties.
28
Amendment to the Faculty Code (passed by the Faculty at the meeting of April 15, 2013)
Chapter I, Part D, Section 4 - Professional Ethics
Professors are bound to observe acceptable standards of professional ethics. In general, a professor
should not compromise the interests of the university or of one's students in favor of one's own.
Questions related to violations of professional ethics should be 1 handled in the following manner:
a. First, take steps required by public law as implemented in university policies.
b. Second, when there is no relevant public law, notify the faculty member of suspected
misconduct on his or her part. There may be an explanation that resolves the matter
satisfactorily.
c. Failing to receive an explanation that is satisfactory, or not wishing to deal directly with the
person that is suspected of misconduct, one should take the matter to the Chair of that person’s
department. (If the Chair is the person suspected of misconduct one should take the matter to
the Dean.) The Chair may resolve the matter to everyone’s satisfaction.
d. If these steps do not resolve the problem, the matter should normally be referred to the Dean and
handled through the grievance process as provided in Chapter VI, with the Dean responsible for
filing the grievance. In the event that the Dean does not file the grievance, faculty members retain
the right to do so.
Grievances must be filed according to the timeline outlined in Chapter VI.
Chapter VI, Section 2 - Prehearing Settlement Conference
a. Within thirty (30) working days of the alleged violation, the grievant shall give written notice
thereof to the respondent; provided, that the notice may be served on the dean if the grievant is
without knowledge of the identity of the respondent.
A grievance notice presented after thirty working days of the alleged violation will be considered
only if: (1) an alternative process is required by public law as implemented in university
policies; or (2) the grievant demonstrates that he or she did not know, or could not have known,
about the alleged violation until a later time. In the second instance, the grievance notice must be
given within thirty working days of the date upon which the grievant gained knowledge of the
alleged violation.
b. The notice shall state the relevant facts with reasonable particularity, cite those portions of the
appointment contract or the faculty code alleged to be violated, and include proposed remedies.
c. Within five (5) working days of notice the respondent shall conduct formal discussions
with the grievant and other appropriate persons with the intent of reaching a satisfactory
settlement of the grievance, and which, if found, shall terminate the grievance process. Any
party may terminate the prehearing settlement conference if they feel that further
discussions will be unsuccessful.
29